we essentially have junk science did people say -- it's junk science. what i mean by junk science is that science that doesn't have any applications beyond the immediate subject of study, that you can't make any sweeping generalizations based on a. that if you're looking at an individual players bring, if you're not doing a randomized study, you can tell us about that individualize brain but you can't tell us about other players and you can't tell us the rate of cte amongst people in society or people in the nfl. this is the kind of study they're done with cigarettes in 1966, the british doctors study shows there's a link between cigarettes and cancer. that kind of the study hasn't even been attempted with cte. what we have are autopsies done in italy with a selection bias. in other words, scientists going after brains that they believed to have been brain-damaged improvise, and finding, lo and behold, when you do an autopsy that they have brain damage. shocking. one of the big concerns that other scientists have, let me play that there is article after